Meta-analysis of mindfulness-based stress reduction for cancer-related fatigue: evidence from randomized controlled trials and implications for clinical practice.

A meta-analysis of 7 controlled trials involving 570 cancer patients found that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) significantly reduced cancer-related fatigue compared to conventional care, with a combined effect size of -1.15 (95% CI [-1.56, -0.74]). Heterogeneity was high (I²=79%, p<0.001). The analysis noted slight publication bias and moderate study quality, with insufficient reporting of allocation concealment and blinding. The authors conclude that MBSR shows promise for alleviating fatigue but call for larger, more rigorous trials to confirm long-term effects and explore neurobiological mechanisms.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This study aims to explore the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on alleviating fatigue symptoms in cancer patients during treatment. Cancer-related fatigue is a common and persistent clinical symptom that affects approximately 60% to 90% of patients, diminishing their quality of life and potentially interfering with treatment adherence. In recent years, this integrative approach combining psychological adjustment and behavioral training has gradually demonstrated unique value in the management of chronic diseases. This study employed a scientific method of integrating literature and data analysis, strictly adhering to international evidence-based research standards. We searched top domestic and international databases to gather research materials. After conducting a rigorous quality assessment of the collected clinical studies, we carefully selected 7 eligible controlled trials, covering data from 570 cancer patients, and used professional statistical software for effect evaluation. The heterogeneity test result was I2 = 79% (p < 0.001), with a combined effect size SMD of -1.15 and a 95% confidence interval of [-1.56, -0.74]. Compared with the conventional care group, patients who received MBSR showed significant superiority in reducing fatigue symptoms, with a noticeable overall improvement effect. However, the funnel plot revealed a slight publication bias. The quality of the included studies was generally moderate. During the literature quality assessment, it was found that some studies lacked detailed descriptions of group allocation and the transparency of information in the evaluation process needed improvement. Therefore, the main bias risk originated from insufficient reporting of allocation concealment and blinding implementation. Current evidence indicates that this therapy has a mitigating effect on cancer-induced fatigue. However, given the limited number of existing studies and small sample sizes, we suggest that future research should conduct larger-scale, more rigorously designed clinical trials to verify its long-term effects and further explore its underlying neurobiological mechanisms.